Re: Darwin HFS+ bug

[Paul Eggert]

Jim Meyering <address@hidden> writes:

>       CONSECUTIVE_READDIR_UNLINK_THRESHOLD = 200

I looked into this a bit, and found myself wondering: why does 'rm'
need to have this constant?  Could rm do the rough equivalent of
savedir on the directory (copying its file names and perhaps types
into main memory), and then walk through the in-memory copy of the
directory?

Such an approach would take more memory, but the extra memory should
be acceptable these days.  Also, this approach would walk through the
directory twice, but in the normal case this wouldn't hurt performance
much, and it might even help performance.

An advantage of this approach is that we wouldn't need these fudge
factors for buggy file systems.